Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 15-18 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1. 3. 5-6 and 9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shachar et al (2022/0406043).
In regard to claims 1 and 15, Shachar discloses a plant analysis system comprising:
a vehicle configured to traverse a field in which the plant is growing (Shachar Figs. 1-3 and par. 52 note data collection vehicle which traverses an orchard);
an imaging device mechanically coupled to the vehicle, wherein the imaging device is configured to generate stereo image data associated with the plant (Shachar Figs. 1-3 and par. 52 note vehicle comprises an imaging device 118 which may be a stereo camera); and
a back-end computer system comprising a processor and a memory (Shachar Fig. 1 and par. 39 note processor and 110 and memory 114) configured to store a machine learning algorithm (Shachar par. 45 note machine learning classifier) that, when executed by the processor, cause the back-end computer system to:
receive the stereo image data from the imaging device (Shachar par. 56 note applying a classifier to the acquired images, hence the computing system must receive the images);
autonomously detect an object of interest associated with the plant based on the received stereo image data (Shachar par. 56 note using object detection to identify fruit within an orchard);
characterize the detected object of interest (Shachar pars. 56-58 and 61 note identifying fruits within in image, determining the location, size and type of fruit) ; and
estimate a crop yield based on the characterization of the detected object of interest (Shachar par. 29 note determining a fruit crop yield, also note par. 58 note determining the size of every detected fruit).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Shachar further discloses that the object of interest comprises a grape (Shachar par. 24 note fruit crop includes grapes).
Claim 19 recites a method which substantially corresponds to the process steps performed by the plant analysis system of claim 1. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above for the rejection of claim 19 which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar in view of Deljkovic et al (2024/0202922 hereafter referred to as Del).
In regard to claims 3 and 16 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 2 and 15 above. Shachar discloses a stereo video camera as noted above (Shachar par. 52). Shachar does not disclose details of the construction of the stereo camera. However, Dell discloses a plant management system including a vehicle equipped with one or more stereo cameras, wherein the camera comprising:
a first lens (Del Fig. 1 and par. 69 not image capture devices 104, 106 and 108, further note par. 79 each image capture device includes a lens);
a second lens set a fixed distance from the first lens, thereby defining a fixed leg upon which triangulation computations can be determined (Del Figs. 1, 3, and par. 93 note first and second color CMOS sensors may be used to form a stereo camera, note that the stereo camera includes a horizontal displacement between sensors used for determining three dimensional data, also note CMOS sensors have separate housings)
a plurality of lights surrounding the first lens and the second lens (Del Fig. 3 and pars. 69-70 note plurality of LEDS 302 surrounding the lens of the CMOS sensor 304, further note par. 96 separate housings each with LED packages).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including a stereo camera as taught by Del as the stereo camera of Shachar in order to gain the advantage of using “off-the-shelf” stereo camera systems as suggested by Del (Del par. 96).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 3 above. Shachar and Dell disclose that the triangulation computations include a determination of at least one of a depth that includes a distance from which an object of interest is positioned relative to the imaging device (Shachar par. 57 note determining 3D spatial location using depth, Del par. 96 not determining depth information).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 4 above. Del further discloses that the imaging device further comprises an overdrive circuit, a hardware synchronization circuit and a memory (Del pars. 98-102 note hardware to overdrive the LED lights also note par. 96 wired or wireless synchronization signal sent from first camera to a second also note par. 139 controller 704 synchronizing illumination and image capture in addition to other processes, , finally note Fig. 8 and par 182 storage 820 for ‘memory’).
In regard to claims 12 and 20 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 2 and 19 above. wherein, when executed by the processor, the machine learning algorithm further causes the back-end computer system to:
determine, via a stereo image engine, a relative position of the grape (Shachar par. 57 note determining the 3D location of each detected fruit);
eliminate, via an image mosaic slicing engine, overlap associated with the stereo image data according to a temporal sequence (Shachar par 60 note removing dual fruit counts by determining that that two fruits in the same location are a single fruit, which is equivalent to the mosaic process described in par. 29 of the applicants specification which also identifies two images of fruit in a single location and identifies the two images as single fruit); and
extract, via a deep net extraction engine, features of the grape from the stereo image data (Shachar par. 58 note determining the size of the detected fruit, also note par. 61 note determining fruit variety and other related features);
determine, via a yield analytical engine, extracted features of the grape (Shachar pars. 58 and 61).
It is noted that Shachar does not disclose details of determining the condition of a detected fruit. However, Del discloses a plant management system including detecting fruit, such as grapes, in captured images and determining the condition of the fruit based on features extracted from the image (Del par. 77 note using color information to determine fruit health and ripeness, further note par. 130 the imaged fruit may be grapes).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating in Shachar a processing step of determining the condition of the inspected fruit based on the extracted features as taught by Del in order to identify dying or dead plants as suggested by Del (Del par. 77).
In regard to claim 13 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 12 above. Del further discloses that wherein the determined condition comprises at least one of an age or a health associated with the grape (Del par. 77 note determining the health of the fruit and plants).
In regard to claim 14 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 13 above. Shachar further discloses that the extracted feature comprises at least one of a size a color or a type or combinations thereof (Shachar par. 58 note determining the size of a fruit).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar in view of Del and in further view of Nakamura et al (3,846,811).
In regard to claims 6 and 17 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 5 and 16 above. Dell further discloses that the overdrive circuit controls driving of the plurality of lights according to a predetermined parameter (Dell par. 99 note controlling the voltage and duty cycle applied to the LEDs and selecting a desired voltage and duty cycle through empirical testing).
It is noted that Del does not explicitly disclose operating the overdrive by discharging a capacitor. However Nakamura discloses a camera flash control circuit which is controlled to discharge a capacitor to drive a flash for a camera (Nakamura Fig. 2 and col. 3 lines 15-26 note capacitor 2 stores energy to drive a flash generating light element 3).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of driving the LED flash of Shachar and Dell by using a capacitor as taught by Nakamura in order to provide high power output for short period of time as suggested by Nakamura (Nakamura col. 3 line 56 to col.4 line 56 to col. 4 line 5).
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 6 above. Del further discloses that the predetermined parameter comprises a microsecond flash configured to enable the imaging device to generate stereo image data as the vehicle travels at a predetermined speed through the field (Del par. 100 note strobe pulse width of 75 micro-seconds, further note par. 96 images captured while moving at a known speed).
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 7 above. Dell discloses that overdriving the LEDs may require a large current (Del par. 99 note current may be 50 times the rated current). It is noted that neither Shachar nor Del specify a current of over one hundred amps a current limiting resistor. However, the flash driving circuit disclosed by Nakamura further includes a current limiting resistor that may be adjusted to a desired current (Nakamura Fig. 2 and col. 3 lines 46-55). Nakamura further discloses that a flash circuit may generate a current in excess of one hundred amps (Nakamura Fig. 1 and col. 1 lines 11-31).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating a current limiting resistor as taught by Nakamura in the invention of Shachar in view of Del in order to allow for adjustment of the intensity and length of the flash as taught by Nakamura (Nakamura col. 3 line 64 to col. 4 line 5), and to further utilize an amperage in excess of 100 amps as suggested by both Dell and Nakamura (Del par. 99 note large amperage expected, Nakamura col. 1 lines 11-31 current on the order of several hundred amps) in order to provide sufficient illumination for daytime capturing as suggested by Del (Del par. 85 note intensity of the illumination source must be greater than the sun).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shachar in view of Del and in further view of Redden et al (20150015697).
In regard to claims 9 and 18 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 2 and 15 above. Del further discloses that a plurality of location indicators dispersed throughout the field (Del pars 77 and 88 note counting and mapping locations of posts), wherein the stereo image data comprises location information provided via the plurality of location indicators (Del par. 77 not post locations mapped out using CMOS sensors, also note par. 96 for stereo imaging and pars 161-164 for creating a digital map of the field), and wherein, when executed by the processor, the machine learning algorithm causes the back-end computer system to:
determine, via a geospatial visualization engine, a plurality of locations in the field associated with the received stereo image data based on the location information (Del pars. 77 and 88 note identifying and mapping the locations of posts within the field) ;
categorize, via a geospatial visualization engine, the received stereo image data based on the location information (Del par. 88 note determining a row and bay of plants based on the post count);
It is noted that neither Shachar nor Del disclose details of calibrating image data based on the categorization. However, Redden discloses a system for monitoring plants in which the location assigned to images captured by a vehicle traversing a field of plants is calibrated based on detected location indicators (Redden pars. 62 and 99 note determining the location of sensor data, including images, based on detected location markers).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of including additional location markers, as taught by Redden, at locations in the field of Shachar in view of Del in order to provide redundancy in location data as suggested by Redden (Redden note multiple methods of associating sensor data with physical locations).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Redden further discloses the plurality of location indicators comprise a plurality of quick response codes (Redden par. 99 note QR codes).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Redden further discloses to determining a position and orientation of an imaging device within the field based on the received image data (Redden pars 62 and 99 note the location of the vehicle is determined based on a QR code detected with in the image provided by an optical sensor).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040264763 A1 Mas, Francisco Rovira et al.
US 20160370366 A1 Fleming; William et al.
US 20200337235 A1 Blank; Sebastian et al.
US 20230124026 A1 HANSEN; Matthew D.
US 20230196762 A1 Silva; Daniel Ribeiro
US 4082982 A Hirata; Shinji
US 6593705 B1 Rudd; Eric P. et al..
US 11816834 B2 Jung; Jinha et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights